BuzzerBeater Forums

Nice to get a little discussion going =)
I'm OK with equally good draftees no matter what division you are in. Your arguments are good enough.
Is there a maximum of 48 players presented in the draft? It could be

BOTS should draft the worst players in the draft, if any. To only have 6 draftees available in a draft in a division where there is only 2 active teams is... not good. The chance of a high-potential player ending up along these six players are microscopial.
If BOTS select the worst players, there is a better chance that new teams get potentially good players in the draft even if they don't invest too much in the draft the first year.

Yes that's a good way too, but in that case I would certainly be adding the idea that bot teams put their players to transfer list (no matter how bad they are) for the price of salary*10. The worthy players would be sold, the others can be kept by the bot teams.
Here's my point: If you randomly share draftees, there will be good draftees in leagues with only bot teams. Currently the draftees go to bot teams are lost players. They are neither trained, nor sold.

Also if there's a league with only 1-2 active teams they get as many good players as a whole 16-team league which is not fair either and that's why I proposed the other version (no draftees for bots). With that system the 2-team leagues members have exactly the same chance as any other 16-team league members. Count like this: there is a 16-team league and a 2-team leauge. So it's 48 draftees in both leagues, 50% of good draftees go to each league (let's say, there will be 4 good draftees altogether). It means that in the 2nd league, both teams will get 25% of the good draftees (2 of each teams), while in the first league it's only 3,125% chance per team (4 good draftees for 16 teams, so it's 0,25 players per team - most commonly 1 in every 4 teams).
Let's say, there will be 8 good draftees in the total 96 draftees. In this case the 2-team leage members get 3-3 good draftees and 2 good draftees go to bot teams (lost players), while in the 16-team leagues get 8 good draftees too, that's 1 good draftees in every second team.
In the other system (no bot darft) it means that there would be only 54 draftees based on active teams (18*3). 6 of them would go to the 2-team league (11,111% of all, which is 5,555% of the good draftees per team) and 48 goes to the 16-team league (88,888% of all, which is also 5,555% per team).

By the way, are the BBs and GMs reading these suggestion or should we write pm to them if we get a common point with our ideas? If they read it, it would be nice to see a feedback with their opinion about the different ideas.

Last edited by LA-Charlie50 at 1/22/2014 5:54:17 AM

I agree with many of your ideas. I think HOF/ATG should be rarer than 2%, as that means there would be almost one per draft on average in a full league, and that may be too many. Bots transferring draftees would be interesting too, but maybe for example we can specify that it's only bot teams in leagues with human owners - no need for the 16384 bot teams in USA VI to flood the market with three draftees each.

Okay, I just wrote numbers, as examples. Of course, the BBs should count what numbers will bring a good balance to the draft.
The idea about bot teams transferring players is because of the bot leagues. All players getting there are lost to the community. If bot teams take 40% of all draftees, it means that 40% of the draftees are lost. Anyway I still think that the "bots not drafting" thing would be perfect.

Thanks, very good idea.

I know that bots getting draftees is not unique Hungarian case
That was only an example as I know how annoying is it in Hungary to see10-20 4-5k salary HOFs at bot teams while in our league there were two 18 yrs old superstars and they were the best draftees.

I don't understand why would you be rewarded for tanking with bots not drafting?

Thanks for the feedback anyway, good to know that you guys keep an eye on our suggestions, we appreciate it.

once you are in the lowest leagues, often being all alone with 15 bots, you could get the best 3 draftees in that league

That's why I said that I would randomly share the rookies between the teams and not leagues. This way your "best 3 rookies" will be just like any other team's (I mean the chances). If you share draftees by active teams it could turn out that a 1-team league draft could be a superstar, a starter and a bench-warmer. The training and promoting are available now as well.

Any league has the same chance to get a good draftee

Correct. That's why now a 1-team league member has better chance then a 16-team league member. If bots wouldn't draft it could be equal chance. And it doesn't mean to give better draftees for D1 (it was someone else's idea in the first comment)

I really like the idea of a D league. Lots of details involved to make sure it's balanced correctly, but being able to train more players should be a valid strategy. Some teams IRL focus more resources on their farm system than acquisitions. Others are in a rebuilding period of years. A D-League that is a cost decision to make would add another fun bit of strategy and planning. Your suggested costs per week also seemed a bit high to me, but the cost should be high enough to make it a decision that every team won't opt for. Also, potentially the cost per week should be adjusted based on the division you're in?